Father Knows Best

Posted on December 17, 2012

7


We don’t know what to think about this situation, Mr. Mayor. Could you please apply your superior intellect to it, so we don’t have to?

Politicians, by the nature of how they are wired as human beings, are inclined to seek opportunity in tragedy. Rarely, if ever, do you find one that possesses the instinct of a leader and a problem-solver. The responses are cynical and contrived stratagems the purpose of which is to demonstrate that they are paying attention and that they care and that they possess the capacity for empathy above and beyond ordinary mortals. That’s the standard package, out the door, not including tax and license.

But with some, you get the options added on. They come from politicians with such an inflated sense of self and messianic purpose, that not only do they cry fake tears and feign authentic sympathy, but they climb unashamedly onto the dais and proclaim celestial wisdom that the lowly plebe is in breathless anticipation of receiving. Sadly, these pneumatic politicos are long on pontification and short on practical understanding, truth, perspective or realism.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the embodiment of the politico possessing the conceit of an Übermensch, coupled with the conviction that we mere novitiates desire his illuminations and erudite proclamation. In short, if you think you’ve arrived at some kind of general appraisal of the facts and some discernment of the nature of the situation, but have not yet heard from Mike, you are sadly mistaken.

He considers himself to have been cheated by destiny to have not lived in the age of Emperors, for surely he would possess all the essential requisites to rule and reign. Therefore, in the wake of the horrible and regrettable, criminal assault that occurred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut this past Friday morning, it was inevitable that we would have to wait with eager ears to find out what Mayor Mike had to say. Frankly, it wasn’t difficult to predict what his take on the matter would be and what would be the focus. That’s because we’ve heard it before. Julia Adcock, writing in Law Enforcement Today, gives us a summary of Mayor Bloomberg’s ‘rap sheet’:

Mayor Bloomberg, a co-founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has long been a supporter of gun bans and forcing the citizens of New York City to rely on law enforcement for their protection.  He doesn’t see law abiding citizens as part of an important team in the effort to deal with those who would victimize and terrorize the community.  While he has an armed personal security detail with him to protect him from the” riff raff”, the citizens of his city are left picking up the pieces or being killed while waiting for law enforcement to arrive, assuming, of course, they even had time or a phone to call.  This is not a reflection on NYPD, merely the reality that law enforcement simply cannot be everywhere, no matter how professional or highly trained.

 ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’? Is that rhetorically akin to ‘Swimmers against Man-eating Sharks’ or ‘Dogs and Cats against Asian Street vendor Cuisine’? Earlier this year, Bloomberg foamed at the mouth about guns, in the wake of the Batman Movie Massacre this past July:

Well, I would take it one step further. I don’t understand why the police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say, we’re going to go on strike. We’re not going to protect you. Unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe. After all, police officers want to go home to their families. And we’re doing everything we can to make their job more difficult but, more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor-piercing bullets.”

At the risk of bursting the balloon of the Mayor’s vaunted powers of deductive reasoning, may I be pardoned if I make note of a fact hidden from him perhaps, but which nevertheless, is in plain sight?  It is already illegal for weapons, guns or otherwise, to be in the hands of criminals – ‘people who shouldn’t have them’ – and for those weapons to be used to commit a crime. He’s suggesting that new laws be enacted to replace the already extant laws on the books. Maybe criminals need a refresher, an additional reminder of the fact that society frowns upon their possession of guns and the uses to which they put them. Yes, that’s it – we just haven’t been emphatic enough. If we reaffirm this and perhaps include some moralistic language behind it, they will realize how serious we are. 

On the other hand, if we look yet again at his actual words, it is possible that we’ve arrived at the wrong interpretation. Looked at from a different vantage point this sentence may convey something quite different.by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them”, could very well indicate that the Mayor thinks that you and I have no business owning guns and that the only ones who ‘should have them’ are the police and the military. That, of course, would rule out individual ownership of firearms altogether. This seems like a more logical interpretation of Mayor Mike’s intent. Also, in July, Bloomberg made this statement:

And everybody always says, ‘Isn’t it tragic,’ and you know, we look for was the guy, as you said, maybe trying to recreate Batman. I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it’s just got to stop. And instead of the two people – President Obama and Governor Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, okay, tell us how. And this is a real problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them concretely, not just in generalities – specifically what are they going to do about guns? I can tell you what we do here in New York. The State Legislature passed the toughest gun laws – some states may say no. That’s okay, what do you want to do? And maybe every Governor should stand up. But in the end, it is really the leadership at a national level, which is whoever is going to be President of the United States starting next January 1st – what are they going to do about guns?”

Because the guy doesn’t know how to shut up and because he adores the sound of his voice droning on, he unintentionally knocked the legs out from under his basic argument of less guns = less killing. “There’s no other place that allows- we have more guns than people in this country. Every place else, if there are murders they’re generally not done with guns – not generally, a lot more are not done with guns.” says Bloomberg.  What are we to take away from this nonsense?  Would it be preferable to be the victim of a deadly sword attack or explosion? Hey, people would be dead – yes, but thankfully, not because the assailant used a gun.

Does anyone remember the mass school slayings in China, just 2 years ago, in which a 48 year old man went into a neighborhood school with a Butcher knife, slashed the school’s administrator, a teacher, and a student standing by her side, killing them all. He then went on a bloodthirsty spree, hacking pupils. All the victims were taken to the hospital, most with critical head wounds. Six students and Ms. Wu’s 80-year-old mother died of their wounds. The others survived, but some had severe injuries. Supposing just for a moment that it were possible for the government to confiscate each and every single firearm of any type, would it logically ensue that mass slayings would be rendered impossible? The obvious answer is no.

Bloomberg, in the wake of the Aurora, Colorado incident, insisted that each candidate lay out a proposal of what they are ‘going to do about guns’. From someone who projects the image of omniscience as does the Mayor, shouldn’t we have expected an outline of a solution? Maybe a specific suggestion or two? Nothing of that kind was ever brought forth. Heaven knows, if you just wish to bloviate, don’t confuse matters by providing a specific plan. He soon became distracted, I suppose, by the crucial need to dictate to New Yorkers, how much soda they could order at a take out restaurant or convenience store. Compare his July statement to the one he just released yesterday:  

The country needs him (Obama), to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response.”

‘Immediate action’? Such as what? He doesn’t really want to spell out what he has in mind, most likely because it would have zero impact on the possibility of another mass shooting. As has been pointed out, Connecticut already has among the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The shooter was not able to complete a purchase of a weapon through legal channels and so he in essence, stole them from his mother after killing her. A little less hysteria and a lot more perspective is in order here. Cars can be used as deadly weapons and in fact have. A couple of examples of incidents in recent years include:  

  • 2003 – 10 killed and 63 injured in Santa Monica, California.
  • 1980 – 7 dead and 22 injured in Reno, Nevada.
  • 2005 – 3 dead and 11 injured in Las Vegas, Nevada.

I suppose a killer going on a rampage behind the wheel at 7:45AM as school children exit the bus and parent’s vehicles, would be less traumatic than a shooting??? When you look at mass killings in a global context, the outcomes are the same – the only difference is the implements of death that are used. In countries where firearms are much more difficult to obtain, you see that the slaughter is every bit as devastating and the victims are just as dead from attacks where the perpetrator used what criminologists term ‘Melee’ weapons like knives, swords, spears, machetes, axes, clubs and similar objects. In other notorious incidents, arson and explosives were employed.

A refreshing bit of clear thinking was given by Pia Conte, 47, who lives in the Lanza neighborhood and has two sons in their 20s. Ms Conte called the ordeal ‘sad’ for Lanza and his family, and suggested that the violence is a portion of a much larger situation.  ‘Guns are easy to point to, but it’s really a mental health issue.’  Thank you Pia, that’s exactly what the issue is.  Crazy people.  And you can’t predict or prevent their behavior.  If someone knows how, I’d like to plagiarize your method and receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

When it comes to the gun debate in America, logic and reason, however, do not take center stage. That is reserved for demagogues like Michael Bloomberg. It’s clear that Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and others of their ilk including the exploitative political media, know full well that eliminating these random tragedies is not the real agenda behind gun control. The agenda is people control. The first stage of implementing authoritarian rule, is to ensure that the subject population is unable to resist, revolt or rebel. Once citizens are disarmed, the rest of the plan falls into place with nary a whimper. 

Folks – it’s time to sharpen your mental faculties and be prepared to defend freedom with a clear and logical answer for anyone you encounter, who has swallowed Mike Bloomberg’s regulation sized but potent, 16 ounce, anti-gun Kool Aid.

Advertisements